Why I no longer believe religion is a virus of the mind - Atheist Nexus2020-06-07T07:08:52Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/why-i-no-longer-believe-religion-is-a-virus-of-the-mind?groupUrl=originsuniverselifehumankindanddarwin&commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A2327513&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noMy reaction to Blackmore's ch…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-11-10:2182797:Comment:23275132013-11-10T19:58:56.946ZRuth Anthony-Gardnerhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/RuthAnthonyGardner
<p>My reaction to Blackmore's change of heart is found in <a href="http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/hangwithfriends/forum/topics/susan-blackmore-has-lost-it?xg_source=activity" target="_blank">this discussion</a>.</p>
<p>My reaction to Blackmore's change of heart is found in <a href="http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/hangwithfriends/forum/topics/susan-blackmore-has-lost-it?xg_source=activity" target="_blank">this discussion</a>.</p> Jay Stride,
Your comment is a…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-11-09:2182797:Comment:23269932013-11-09T02:08:41.527ZMadhukar Kulkarnihttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/MADHUKARKULKARNI
<p>Jay Stride,</p>
<p>Your comment is amusing but not entirely true. If you look at the recession of faith among Europeans then you will know that rational salvos are capable of penetrating the armor of belief. Besides, there is a perceptible growth of 'nones' in the bastion of religion, the US. The armor of faith is weak and it is breaking.</p>
<p>Jay Stride,</p>
<p>Your comment is amusing but not entirely true. If you look at the recession of faith among Europeans then you will know that rational salvos are capable of penetrating the armor of belief. Besides, there is a perceptible growth of 'nones' in the bastion of religion, the US. The armor of faith is weak and it is breaking.</p> The comparison of numbers of…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-11-04:2182797:Comment:23254372013-11-04T18:03:11.237ZJoan Denoohttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
<p>The comparison of numbers of children by religious and non-religious is an argument against religion, in my opinion. It might have been an evolutionary advantage when the world's population was low, when over-population was not a problem. We need to stop reproducing Homo sapiens. To continue means more hunger, disease, poverty, and exploitation because of an overabundance of available workers and more enforced hardships for women, already overburdened with social conditions being what they…</p>
<p>The comparison of numbers of children by religious and non-religious is an argument against religion, in my opinion. It might have been an evolutionary advantage when the world's population was low, when over-population was not a problem. We need to stop reproducing Homo sapiens. To continue means more hunger, disease, poverty, and exploitation because of an overabundance of available workers and more enforced hardships for women, already overburdened with social conditions being what they are. </p>
<p>Fear of overpopulation by non-religious is no rational reason to favor religion. Fear can and should alert us to the dangers of too many mouths to feed and not enough water to support agriculture for humans, animals and all flora. Just watch what happens when mice have a chance to populate a house. Very soon, babies have babies and the house is overrun with vermin. A few good cats can help stop the increase. With the human population, a responsible goal would be to have a population that can support all life, human, and flora and fauna. The needs of the Earth must take precedence over the wants of religious humans. </p>
<p>To assume "data suggesting that religious people are happier and possibly even <a rel="nofollow" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7302609.stm" title="BBC: Religion 'linked to happy life' ">healthier than secularists</a> may or may not be true." It depends on how one defines religious, secular, healthier and happier. Because my interests involve family violence, the data is growing that "non-church affiliated women experienced lower rates of domestic violence than conservative Christian women. (Brinkerhoff et al. 1992)</p>
<p>Zuckerman cites a study that finds that "atheists and agnostics actually have lower <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/divorce" title="Psychology Today looks at Divorce" class="pt-basics-link">divorce</a> rates than religious Americans (1999 Barna). </p>
<p>The most secular nations in the world report the highest levels of happiness among their population.</p>
<p>During the Holocaust, "the more secular people were, the more likely they were to rescue and help persecuted Jews."</p>
<p>"atheists and agnostics, when compared to religious people, are actually less likely to be nationalistic, racist, anti-Semitic, dogmatic, ethnocentric, and authoritarian. </p>
<p>"Secularism also correlates to higher <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/education" title="Psychology Today looks at Education" class="pt-basics-link">education</a> levels.</p>
<p>"Atheists and other secular people are also much more likely to support women's rights, gender equality, gay and lesbian rights."</p>
<p>"Religious individuals are more likely to support <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/politics" title="Psychology Today looks at Politics" class="pt-basics-link">government</a> use of torture."</p>
<p>Religious research easily picks up on results that favor religion over secular and too often without citations. Zimmerman cites his research. It may be easier for religious to believe unsupported research as they also believe unsupported claims of religion.</p>
<p>I also have difficulty with <a rel="nofollow" class="contributor" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sueblackmore">Sue Blackmore</a> because she seems too easily persuaded to one side or another. Although she writes powerfully, she does not provide the kinds of evidence that persuades me. </p>
<p>Nothing justifies the perpetuation of plain falsehoods regarding atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists, falsehoods that in turn perpetuate <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/bias" title="Psychology Today looks at Bias" class="pt-basics-link">prejudice</a> against them.</p>
<p>~ Phil Zuckerman, Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions. <span style="font-size: 13px;">Pitzer College, Claremont, California</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Athe...</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;">~ David Niose, Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> Just perusing some of the old…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-11-04:2182797:Comment:23253322013-11-04T15:42:57.364ZJay Stridehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JayStride
<p>Just perusing some of the older discussions.</p>
<p>Personally, I favour a battle scenario. I don't see either side in the rational vs religious struggle 'infecting' the other with their way of thinking in any appreciable numbers. Instead we fire salvos of ideas back &amp; forth at each other. However, there is precious little battle damage as both sides are like the iron clads of the Civil War. Well armoured &amp; impervious to cannon fire.</p>
<p>Just perusing some of the older discussions.</p>
<p>Personally, I favour a battle scenario. I don't see either side in the rational vs religious struggle 'infecting' the other with their way of thinking in any appreciable numbers. Instead we fire salvos of ideas back &amp; forth at each other. However, there is precious little battle damage as both sides are like the iron clads of the Civil War. Well armoured &amp; impervious to cannon fire.</p> I Think primitive peoples loo…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-10-11:2182797:Comment:23135502013-10-11T08:25:43.953ZJoan Denoohttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
<p>I Think primitive peoples looked up the night sky and say things that filled them with awe. Or they saw a baby born, or loved one die and felt profound emotions, not unlike what we feel during some important event. Primitives could function as long as they had their health or youth. Finding limitations on oneself could have been a stressful experience. Not knowing about bacteria or virus, or spreading killer diseases through lack of cleanliness, there must have been some superstition rise up…</p>
<p>I Think primitive peoples looked up the night sky and say things that filled them with awe. Or they saw a baby born, or loved one die and felt profound emotions, not unlike what we feel during some important event. Primitives could function as long as they had their health or youth. Finding limitations on oneself could have been a stressful experience. Not knowing about bacteria or virus, or spreading killer diseases through lack of cleanliness, there must have been some superstition rise up around some fearful, unexplainable or undesirable events and hope rise out of some ethereal promise of overcoming the thorns of life. </p>
<p>Modern humans know about the need for cleanliness and good hygiene. We know that rats don't develop from dirty clothes, or we know that flies spread diseases. Not knowing, people developed superstitions and religion. </p>
<p>The sense of wonder of a primitive and a modern human may be the same, except moderns have access to information. Stored information piles up on bookshelves and in libraries. Each individual doesn't have to discover everything, he or she just needs to know how to find information.</p>
<p>As to population growth correlated with religion, there was a time of population shortage and the need for offspring to take care of the elderly. In modern days, with seven-billion + humans on the planet, with a growing scarcity of water and soils to grow food, a growing population is not something to be desired. If we don't need religion to encourage population growth, and don't need religion to experience a sense of awe and wonder, then is there a need for religion? Do we want to place control and power of ourselves into some unseeable/untouchable spirit? Or can we think and reason our way through life's challenges, and can we find meaning and purpose in our daily lives so that we don't have to seek them from some cloud? Surely happiness, contentment, serenity, equanimity comes from within, without the need for some spirit-guide. </p> Tom Sarbeck
Now the world’s o…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-02-12:2182797:Comment:18556262012-02-12T04:43:06.110ZMadhukar Kulkarnihttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/MADHUKARKULKARNI
<p><a class="fn url" href="http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/originsuniverselifehumankindanddarwin/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0948n2z8lve5k">Tom Sarbeck</a></p>
<p><em>Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization.</em></p>
<p>Some days before I had posted here a discussion based on the discovery of a museum of 100,000 year-old-art. I believe that an evolving man must have had many more activities before religion arrived. It is a different story that…</p>
<p><a class="fn url" href="http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/originsuniverselifehumankindanddarwin/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0948n2z8lve5k">Tom Sarbeck</a></p>
<p><em>Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization.</em></p>
<p>Some days before I had posted here a discussion based on the discovery of a museum of 100,000 year-old-art. I believe that an evolving man must have had many more activities before religion arrived. It is a different story that later it took a strangle-hold on humanity. The start of a civilisation must have been when man acquired the ability to think. but it is difficult to believe that this ability first produced temples.</p> I've seen much evidence of th…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-02-10:2182797:Comment:18539032012-02-10T13:26:35.527Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>I've seen much evidence of thinking on this thread but no evidence of feeling.</p>
<p>A cinquain (a la Adelaide Crapsey): &lt; I think / Therefore I am / Said the philosopher. / Bunk! He didn't feel; he only / Half was. &gt;</p>
<p>Now, having destroyed the Western intellectual tradition . . . .</p>
<p>I once believed people are rational. I'd studied math and science, both of them products of rational effort. The work I did for ten years, and that paid well, required rational effort. All was…</p>
<p>I've seen much evidence of thinking on this thread but no evidence of feeling.</p>
<p>A cinquain (a la Adelaide Crapsey): &lt; I think / Therefore I am / Said the philosopher. / Bunk! He didn't feel; he only / Half was. &gt;</p>
<p>Now, having destroyed the Western intellectual tradition . . . .</p>
<p>I once believed people are rational. I'd studied math and science, both of them products of rational effort. The work I did for ten years, and that paid well, required rational effort. All was well.</p>
<p>Then, seeing a billion-dollar piece of political corruption, I plunged into politics and what followed jarred my rationalist ways.</p>
<p>With thanks to Blueberry M. on Feb. 4 above: <em>"We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization."</em></p>
<p><em><br/></em> Did thinking produce that urge to worship? I doubt it.</p>
<p>Thinking produces temples, and it produces ways to take wealth from those with an urge to worship.</p>
<p>How do thinking people explain an urge to worship?</p>
<p></p> I visited the Neolithic site…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-02-05:2182797:Comment:18474522012-02-05T00:20:43.470ZJoan Denoohttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
<p>I visited t<span>he Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük, Turkey. …</span></p>
<p><span><br></br></span></p>
<p>I visited t<span>he Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük, Turkey. </span></p>
<p><span><br/><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=catal+huyuk+turkey&amp;hl=en&amp;site=webhp&amp;prmd=imvns&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;ei=npMtT_T_O8nciQLApYiaCg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=mode_link&amp;ct=mode&amp;cd=2&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ&amp;biw=1229&amp;bih=563" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/search?q=catal+huyuk+turkey&amp;hl=en&amp;site=webhp&amp;prmd=imvns&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;ei=npMtT_T_O8nciQLApYiaCg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=mode_link&amp;ct=mode&amp;cd=2&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ&amp;biw=1229&amp;bih=563</a></span></p>
<p><span><br/></span></p>
<p><span>There were no temples or what could be described as churches or mosques. At each household fire-cooking area were small female images (see page 2 of images) or grains and animals made of clay. <br/>The bull and vultures were common on walls as paintings or clay pieces. <br/>The burial practice was to set the body on a stone platform where vultures stripped the flesh from bone, called excarnation, </span></p>
<p><span><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excarnation" target="_blank">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excarnation</a> </span></p>
<p><span>The bones were deposited in benches inside the homes. </span></p> I suppose I virus can be an e…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-02-04:2182797:Comment:18468392012-02-04T14:34:48.064ZAlicehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/AliceCarr
<p>I suppose I virus can be an enemy of itself - if it does kill it's host.</p>
<p>I suppose I virus can be an enemy of itself - if it does kill it's host.</p> did you hear about that creat…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-02-04:2182797:Comment:18467732012-02-04T14:25:52.011ZAlicehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/AliceCarr
<p>did you hear about that creature that formed based on virus' that held onto it and kind of became legs or fins to get about - so that the parasitic virus became a working in harmony with this cell??? it's late - I'm not explaining myself well....</p>
<p></p>
<p>i'm sure religion was somewhat adaptive to have lasted so long - and also - to still capture peoples minds and imaginations.</p>
<p></p>
<p>It's something about our need to pass on stories of metaphor in order to…</p>
<p>did you hear about that creature that formed based on virus' that held onto it and kind of became legs or fins to get about - so that the parasitic virus became a working in harmony with this cell??? it's late - I'm not explaining myself well....</p>
<p></p>
<p>i'm sure religion was somewhat adaptive to have lasted so long - and also - to still capture peoples minds and imaginations.</p>
<p></p>
<p>It's something about our need to pass on stories of metaphor in order to survive.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Our brains are better at remembering stories than facts - we hold to excitment or other emotional interaction in a story line.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So we weave in excitement for the sake of story - so that we can remember where the food is and what to do in drought.</p>
<p></p>
<p>it became religion when we had forgotten 'why' we told the stories - or the stories became unnecessary and myths - long ago - it was useful - but now it is not. why do we still tell them? because that's what our mother did and I will do the same - this is causality - we do what we learn.</p>